tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post5129974153554612526..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: The Ohr HaChaim's kamatz in רָקִיעַ הַשָּׁמָיִםjoshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-31173597477428321912011-10-18T12:06:14.475-04:002011-10-18T12:06:14.475-04:00It certainly exists, at least in one chumash. But ...It certainly exists, at least in one chumash. But had it existed in absolute form like this before certain Rishonim, I would have expected them to make a comment, analyzing it and either explaining it or explaining it away. (As such, I doubt it stood before Ibn Ezra or Ibn Caspi, for instance.) Minchas Shai and Ohr Torah did not have it, because they certainly had Chumashim with the sheva, and make no comment about the kamatz. And it is not in the Leningrad Codex.<br /><br />Meanwhile, there are plenty of variants which arise from scribal errors among careless printers of Chumashim. Simple examination of chumashim from this time reveals this. It is quite probable that it is just a rather late typo, rather than a very old variant masorah.<br /><br /><i>"And furthermore, Ru'ah Hakodesh is not an attribute of perfection."</i><br />That is what you and I say. But see the words of the Divrei Chaim, who attributes ruach hakodesh to Ohr HaChaim despite Ohr HaChaim saying that such does not exist in his days. The Divrei Chaim goes on to argue that because of this sort of ruach hakodesh, a posek is not permitted to argue against what is written in Shulchan Aruch, since it was written beruach hakodesh.<br /><br />And in my experience, modern-day Lubavitchers take it similarly, that since Rashi was written beruach hakodesh, he is always right. (The other rishonim perhaps didn't realize this.) And since Rashi said in his commentary that he comes only to say peshat, by definition, Rashi is peshat, and peshat is Rashi.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-86244667668924522112011-10-18T11:31:31.317-04:002011-10-18T11:31:31.317-04:00I wonder, though, if one can assert this if the Oh...<i>I wonder, though, if one can assert this if the Ohr HaChaim wrote his commentary on Chumash with ruach hakodesh. How could he not know that the text was faulty?</i><br /><br />Why call it "faulty" when you admitted yourself that there could be a different Mesora? The fact that you didn't find it doesn't make it non-existant.<br /><br />And furthermore, Ru'ah Hakodesh is not an attribute of perfection. Moshe Rabbeinu had the highest level of Nevuah, and yet he erred at Mei Meriva.yaakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08179304707239865515noreply@blogger.com